Context: Response to the September 11, 2001 attacks
AUMF (Authorization for Use of Military Force) passed by Congress
Granted President authority to use force against terrorism suspects
Case Background
Yaser Hamdi, a U.S. citizen, arrested in Afghanistan in 2001
Detained as an "enemy combatant" with alleged ties to al-Qaeda
No charges filed, no legal counsel provided, no opportunity to contest detention
Legal Proceedings
Hamdi's father filed a habeas corpus petition
Sought legal counsel, a stop to interrogation, evidentiary hearing, declaration of unconstitutionality, and release
District court appointed a lawyer and allowed access to Hamdi
Court of appeals reversed, supporting government’s deemed security interests
Government argued indefinite detention justified based on military screening
Mobbs Declaration: only evidence provided by the government
District court deemed insufficient for justification of detention
Ordered more evidence for in camera review
Fourth Circuit reversed decision, upheld Mobbs Declaration as adequate
Dismissed Hamdi’s habeas petition
Supreme Court Ruling
Justice O’Connor's majority opinion:
Hamdi's seizure and detention valid under AUMF
Continued indefinite detention without due process violated constitutional rights
Detention permissible under laws of war but must have due process
Due process analysis:
Balancing Hamdi’s rights against government security interests
Must provide notice of factual basis for classification and fair opportunity to rebut
Government may modify trial procedures to ease burden during military struggles
Dissenting Opinions
Justice Souter:
AUMF did not authorize Hamdi’s detention
Violated Non-Detention Act, demanded release without further procedures
Justice Scalia:
Opposed special process for citizen-enemy combatants
Advocated for criminal charges as a traitor with due process protections
Justice Thomas:
Believed decision on enemy combatant status should rest with President and Congress
Would deny Hamdi's habeas petition without remand
Significance of the Case
Defined executive powers and due process in the context of the war on terror
Affirmed citizens' rights to minimum due process, even if classified as enemy combatants
Related case: Rasul v. Bush
Confirmed civil courts' jurisdiction for habeas petitions from foreign nationals at Guantanamo Bay
Together, these cases provided a check on executive power post-9/11 and highlighted judiciary's role in protecting individual rights during national emergencies.